RT Journal
A1 Grimes DA
T1 THe law, the ama, and partial-birth abortion—reply
JF JAMA
JO JAMA
YR 1999
FD July 7
VO 282
IS 1
SP 23
OP 27
DO 10-1001/pubs.JAMA-ISSN-0098-7484-282-1-jbk0707
UL http://dx.doi.org/10-1001/pubs.JAMA-ISSN-0098-7484-282-1-jbk0707
AB 
Dr Stanley's letter compares second-trimester abortion with female genital
mutilation. However, second-trimester abortion, a medical procedure for which
health benefits are well documented,2 is
constitutionally protected under Roe v Wade. In contrast,
female genital mutilation is not a medical procedure, confers no health benefits,
and has no such protection.1 Stanley implies
that second-trimester instrumental abortion causes "massive bleeding, and
incompetent cervix." To support these claims, she cites a newspaper instead
of scientific literature. Stanley also implies that I intentionally used old
data from 1992. When I wrote my Controversies article, 1992 was the most recent
year for which these published data were available.3
More recent data4 have confirmed what I
reported.